Character When Relevant
Character is a combination of the peculiar qualities impressed by nature or by habit of the person, which distinguish him from others. Character is the estimation of a person by his community
The word ‘character’ includes both reputation and disposition.” Character lies in the man; it is the mark of what he is.
Section – 52 of Evidence Act
In civil cases character to prove conduct imputed, irrelevant.
Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that in civil cases, a fact pertaining to the character of an individual is not relevant. It lays the principle that the character of a party as a piece of evidence can’t be used to manifest that conduct attributed to him is probable or improbable.
The reasons behind the irrelevance are that a case has to be decided based on the facts of the case and not the character of the parties. Evidence of conduct doesn’t just delay the proceedings but also hampers and impairs the mind of the judge. In civil cases, previous convictions of the accused person are irrelevant.
There are a few exceptions to Section 52-
- Section 55 of the Evidence Act provides that in civil cases, evidence of the good or bad character of the person that is to receive the amount of damages is relevant. The character of the original plaintiff is relevant.
- When the character of the party is itself a fact in issue then the evidence pertaining to the character of that party is relevant.
In civil action, as a general rule, evidence of character of any person concerned (a party to a suit) is not admissible for the purpose of raising an inference as to his conduct.
In civil cases the evidence of character is generally inadmissible unless the character is of the substance in issue.
Section – 52 of Evidence Act
CHARACTER ADMISSIBLE IN CIVIL CASES
There are certain cases in which character is a fact in issue or a relevant fact e.g. in a suit for libel, if the libel consisted in attributing bad qualities to the plaintiff and the defendant justices the existence of these qualities, the existence of these qualities would be a fact in issue and evidence of character may be led
The character of a female chastity has been received in evidence in action for breach of promise for marriage
In civil proceeding good or bad character is not relevant. e.g. In a suit filed by landlord against a tenant for recovery of the premises on ground of default of payment of rent, if tenant argued that he is religious person and hence the suit be dismissed. His character is irrelevant and the Court will pass eviction order against him, on the ground of default.
Section – 53 of Evidence Act
In criminal cases previous good character relevant.
In criminal proceedings, previous good character is relevant:- In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of a good character, is relevant.” In criminal enquiries the relevancy of character evidence is different from civil cases.
In Doubtful cases or cases only based upon circumstantial evidence , relevance of good character may be used to tilt the balance in favour of the accused but in a case where there is positive evidence of guilt of the accused then the good character cannot outweigh the positive evidence.
The rationale behind this Section is the presumption that operates against the commission of the offence by the accused. The defense can use this Section to produce evidence of the previous good character of the accused to show that the accused is a person of such honest and upright course of conduct, that a departure from such a nature is highly improbable. This, however, is subject to the right of the prosecution to call evidence in rebuttal. The Supreme Court in, Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar vs State Of Maharashtra,unlike England, held the evidence of both general reputationand general disposition are relevant in criminal proceedings in India
Supreme Court In Habib Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 59, that in criminal proceeding a character of a man is often a matter of importance in explaining his conduct and in judging his innocence or criminality.
Section – 53A of Evidence Act
Evidence of character or previous sexual experience not relevant in certain cases
“In a prosecution for an offence under sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is in issue, evidence of the character of the victim or of such person’s previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant on the issue of such consent or the quality of consent”.
Section 53A was inserted into the Act by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, which was based on the recommendation of Justice JS Verma Committee reportin the aftermath of the Nirbhaya Gangrapeincident. This Section made evidence of character or previous sexual experience not relevant in certain cases which have been listed in the Act and refer to offences in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The prime aim of this section is to prevent character assassination of the victim in the courts. In this particular case, the defence tried to portray the character of the victim in a bad light to tilt the case in favour of the accused persons.
This is no longer permissible as the character or previous sexual experience of the victim is not relevant in the offences prescribed by this section.
By virtue of this section, the defence has been debarred from leading any evidence or asking such questions in cross-examination as may be suggestive of the victim’s past sexual experience with any other person.
This is a progressive provision and is aimed at victim protectionin case of offences as mentioned in Section 53A.
Section – 54 of Evidence Act
Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply.
BAR ON THE PROOF OF PREVIOUS BAD CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS:
The general evidence of good character of the accused is always relevant. This is not so with regard to general evidence of bad character.
In criminal proceeding the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant and cannot be proved. The reason is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt with the necessary evidence in support of the charge.
But the prosecution cannot take the help of bad character of the accused in order to establish its case. lf the prosecution is allowed to prove bad character of the accused, then that would prejudice the mind of the Court. It makes the Court biased against the accused.
If evidence of bad character of the accused is permitted to be proved the Court may come to the conclusion that he has committed the offence in question.
Therefore, this would prejudice the fair trial to which the accused is entitled.
However, there are two exceptions to the rule of the irrelevance of bad character in criminal cases.
The first exception: The previous bad character is relevant in reply, if the evidence has been given that he has good character
The second exception: The evidence of bad character can be proved in cases in which the bad character is in issue
The first exception: The previous bad character is relevant in reply, if the evidence has been given that he has good character
In Indian system of Law, an accused starts with a presumption of innocence; his bad character is not relevant, unless he gives evidence of good character in which case, by way of rebuttal, evidence of bad character may be adduced. The prosecution gets the right to prove the bad character of the accused. In cases of defamation, malicious prosecution etc., the question of reputation is to be considered. In such cases, the bad character of the party may be adduced as evidence.
The second exception: The evidence of bad character can be proved in cases in which the bad character is in issue.
In case of binding over proceedings for keeping good behaviour under Sections 109, and 110, Cr.P.C. and in proceedings for the offence of dacoity under Sections 400, 401, Indian Penal Code. the bad character of the person involved would be a fact in issue. Under Section 110, Cr.P.C.. a person is to be bound down if he is by habit a robber. a house-breaker or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large hazardous. In an Inquiry under
Section 110 Cr.P.C. the very character of the accused is in question and so the evidence to that effect is admissible.
The evidence that the accused had committed similar criminal acts previously is admissible upon the issue to decide whether the act was intentional or accidental. If the evidence of bad character is introduced in order to establish a relevant fact which cannot be proved separately the evidence of bad character is admissible.
Section – 55 of Evidence Act
Character as Affecting Damages.
Section 55of the Indian Evidence Act states that in cases of civil nature, the character of the person who is ought to receive the amount of damages is relevant. This section is an exception to Section 52 mentioned above. The evidence pertaining to the good or bad character of the accused is irrelevant whereas evidence of the good or bad character of the victim is relevant.
It should be noted that it is only in civil cases that a question of amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff is concerned and his character becomes relevant.
No comment